Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
EP94400284.9 on February 9, 1994, and nearly two years from
the date of filing of EP94401306.9 on June 10, 1994.
18. Parties Cragg and Fogarty evidently treat, without
dispute, that MinTec, Inc. and MINTEC SARL are related
entities such that an assignment of interest to the former
means the latter is an “assign.”
19. Andrew H. Cragg made an assignment of rights,
including his interests in the invention covered by Cragg’s
involved application relating to a bifurcated endoluminal
prosthesis, to MINTEC, INC. on August 22, 1994. (Cragg
Exhibit 1021, CE-1021). The date of assignment was six months
after the date of filing of EP94400284.9 on February 9, 1994,
and two months after the date of filing of EP94401306.9 on
June 10, 1994.
Discussion
A. Fogarty’s Preliminary Motion 12
In the “Relief Requested” portion of Fogarty’s
preliminary motion 12, it is stated:
Fogarty moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(g) to deny
the senior party the benefit of EP94400284.9 and
EP94401306.9 on the grounds that neither application
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007